Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/JT's Stockroom

This page is an archive of the discussion about the proposed deletion of the article below. This page is no longer live. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page rather than here so that this page is preserved as an historic record.
The result of the debate was KEEP. Tony Sidaway|Talk 12:03, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] JT's Stockroom

• Keep -- this entry deserves to exist in the same way that it would be mentioned at a museum. i used encyclopedias as a kid in order to research topics, their history, etc... if you wanted to research the origins of the sex toy industry, and this couldn't exist on wikipedia, you'd have to take everyone's word for it based on what is on their commercial websites. isn't this supposed to be an unbiased source of that information? i think the entry should exist. i think that there is not enough information on here yet, but that's what's great about wikipedia. its entries can be improved with time. Sugarego (talk) 01:32, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Advertisement. May have a crumb of notability if claim to be "oldest sex toy company on Internet" is true/verifiable. But still an advertisement. Also has a redirect at JT's Stockroom. FreplySpang (talk) 05:35, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(and now a redirect at Www.stockroom.com) And if anyone is nitpicking, my vote is delete. FreplySpang (talk) 05:43, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC) Changing to keep based on M. Violet's contribution (but it really does need rewriting, at least pasting in some of her text from this discussion) FreplySpang (talk) 21:54, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, Advertising. Wikipedia is not a web directory. Slac speak up! 05:41, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Speedy delete as advert (no need for a VfD here). jdb ❋ (talk) 05:57, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, I wrote this page for my company along with another staff member, after noticing that pages already existed for many other companies, including eBay, Amazon.com, Greenery Press, Daedalus Publishing, Baskin-Robbins, Playboy, Hustler etc etc etc. So I thought websites about companies were OK. The statement about being the first sex toy company online (and also one of the oldest e-commerce companies of any kind) is true and verifiable. You can search on deja.com for the original company name, JT Toys, and you will find references dating to May of 1990. jt@stockroom.com
• Advert is not cause for speedy. That said, I only get 5000 hits for "JT's stockroom", which is awfully low for an Internet sex-related company (compare with 158,000,000 for eBay or 315,000 for Baskin-Robbins). Delete unless notability is proven. Meelar (talk) 06:15, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Try "stockroom.com" -- 24,600 hits on Google.com. We have 180,000 clients, and about $5M in annual sales. jt@stockroom.com 06:29, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Advertisement. No notable third party sources. And I also personally find it very inappropriate for a company to write its own article about themselves in an encyclopedia. Zzyzx11 06:42, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as ad and/or vanity. Radiant_* 07:15, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
• We are a 15-year old internet company. We're well-known and highly regarded within the alternative-sexuality communities we serve, and have aspired to a high ethical standard for as long as we've been in business. As a result, I've become accustomed to a warm reception 99% of the time when we reach out on the net. In this case, I simply assumed that since there were so many entries for companies of all kinds (including adult ones) that starting an entry wouldn't be a problem. Others would be free to edit or add to it. But it seems people object to having an entry for my company, and we don't really want to be where we are apparently not welcome. So I'll offer no further comments or argument. jt@stockroom.com 10:06, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Let me assure you that it's nothing personal, and we don't mean to be hostile. It's just that we deal with dozens of deletion requests per day, so we tend to be a little short-spoken about them. It happens quite often that people create pages about their own websites or small companies, in order to promote them or simply to have a page here. I'm not saying that you did just that, but it is generally assumed that if you (or your company) are famous, someone else will write an article about you. Hope that helps. Radiant_* 10:45, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
  • The company allegedly serves a pretty wide community, not just some narrow niche for toenail-fetishists. Therefore lack of authoritative references makes me feel uncomfortable with the claims of notability. Mikkalai 06:43, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete ad/promo. —Seselwa 11:05, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - advert. SteveW 12:47, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a reputable company and they were pioneers in the early days of online commerce. I found them online in the early 90s and still have one of the very first catalogs. It was sent to me via email after I found them in different bulletin boards I visited. The Stockroom has always been a good source of quality toys. I think they should stay.Trab 8:57am, 5 Apr 2005 (CST)
  • The above is User:Trab's sole edit. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:26, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• KEEP: The Stockroom really is the oldest adult toy company online (started back in the time when .gov and .edu were the only networks). I think this gives it historical value and a reason to be listed on Wikipedia. As far as BDSM, Fetish, and the history of Sex Toys and the Internet go, the site would be incomplete without at least making reference to this trailblazing company. - Juli Crockett, 9:16am 5 Apr 2005
• Provisional Keep If this information is verified, then this is notable sex toy company and thus encyclopedic. Klonimus 16:47, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• KEEP: The Stockroom is a fixture within the BDSM community, and has been since the beginning of the internet. They help BDSM/fetish/kink groups in countless ways, and have been a pillar of the community. They strive to educate people, and present a beautiful aesthetic which you don't see on the newer "sex toy" sites. They seem to work hard to be more than just a company selling the best BDSM products, they care very much about the community they serve. - JH 9:46AM 5 Apr 2005
  • You don't get to vote twice, User:64.81.88.123. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 16:52, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Someone else inside the company was trying to help. So you may want to disregard one of the "Keep" votes.
• Keep. Being the oldest adult toy company online makes them notable in my book. My keep vote is provisional upon evidence that they really are the first. Dave the Red (talk) 18:15, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Evidence: If you go to Google's "Groups" and search "JT Toys" there are postings that date back to 1990 from alt.sex.bondage and other usenet groups talking about JT's e-catalog. Try this link: http://groups-beta.google.com/groups?hl=en&q=JT+Toys&qt_s=Search+Groups - Juli Crockett
• Delete, age does not equate to notability. And votes from anonymous voters and people who create User IDs after the creation of the VfD page are generally discounted. RickK 20:34, Apr 5, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep my thinking is the same as Klonimus. I see notability in the claims if they are properly proven. --Fuzzball! (talk) 01:37, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Is this to be undersood as "delete, if the claims remain unproven"? Mikkalai 06:38, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete advertising, as illustrated by the sockpuppet defenders.. CDC (talk) 04:27, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep and I'll add that it needs additional writing or a re-write so the copy feels less self-congratulatory. Yes, this is my first Wiki Edit. I was also contacted by a friend telling me the Stockroom was up for deletion and I disagree with that choice so I've decided to comment. I use Wiki daily but haven't feelt comfortable editing - it's clearly not my forte. BUT! It's true that the Stockroom was a pioneer in selling sex toys online and most importantly, they made readily available BDSM basic supplies early in the game. While many of you may not be familiar with the BDSM world and how the internet has greatly changed the way we traffic in this business, I am quite familiar. I can say, although not encyclopedically, that The Stockroom has had a major effect on bringing BDSM into the glowy light of our computer monitors and basically out of the dungeon. Sex and the internet are tied to one another and it's quickly becoming true that BDSM and the internet are nearly inseparable - certainly if you're working as a professional Dominatrix, as I am. JTs is rather crucial to the BDSM industry and with their attractive catalogues, website, and ability to create catalogues for both men and women, they have really cleaned up the image of BDSM and made it more accessible and a lot safer for those looking to experiment. The impact that JTs and its imitators has on Joe Blow From Idaho is astounding - the dark and mysterious objects fantasized about secretly now have pictures, descriptions, improvements, and are at the fingertips and available for experimentation from the comfort of the home. I think that's important. Just like books and DVDs - or Cloisonne Boxes on Ebay - I believe the effect is there. The tools of the trade were exceptionally hard to come by in the 80s and earlier and there was very little variation - by opening the online doors for BDSM and sex toy sales it really brought the business up several notches as well as private interaction. It's hard to put this in terms I feel are best for shorthand and Wikipedia, so I'll stop. In my experience the impact has been felt in a prfound and positive way and if you have questions I'll be happy to try to answer those specifically. (I've 12 years in the business and 6 more privately before that time). I do think the entry needs re-working but not a full deletion. M. Violet 05:25, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • The above is this User's only edits. RickK 05:29, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)
    • Which I stated in my long winded commentary already. Yes, it is my first/only edit. M. Violet 05:34, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep For the reasons given above by Mviolet. Notable, in its context. Article needs serious editing for NPOV, though. Perhaps some of Mviolet's comments could be adapted into an NPOV part of the article? -- Karada 16:53, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• I've been asked to write some on the article. I'll try - or at least add some of my text, but I do hope someone comes in and adapts the comments/edits. Anyone is welcome to use my above words/commentary for that purpose. M. Violet 18:40, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• This company's alexa rank is currently running in the 40,000s. Looking at the history, alexa rank has been highly variable but never better than 20,000. $5 M revenues makes this a pretty small company. While there are no hard and fast rules for companies, these are smaller than we generally keep. I'm a bit skeptical of the claim that they were first to sell to this niche via Internet and changed the industry. There were anonymous mail order companies before. Finally, the fact that the article was started by the founder counts against it. I believe the logic behind no autobiographies applies here as well. I have to vote delete for now but I'll look at the article again toward the end of the discussion period to see if Mviolet's edits can change my mind. Rossami (talk) 22:08, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• delete. Don't you remember the no original research thingy? Is this company covered in authoritative publications? If Violet Dominatrix provides sources, other than online sexychats, the article is welcome. Otherwise whip it and slash it and tear apart. Mikkalai 02:48, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • While your sarcasm is irritating & smacks of what is distasteful about online "community", I agree that I don't have verifiable sources for their affect on the industry other than experience & observation. Reading the No original research article, we're back to square one of their being original sellers of sextoys online (provable) & the rest is experienced opinion. Which is all I'm offering - another side to this reactionary delete-fest. I'm just here to give perspective on a company & industry I'm familiar with and others are not. M. Violet 23:35, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
    • "Experienced opinion" is exactly is out of place according to the policy in question. As for sarcasm, didn't I say "welcome"? It means that I have nothing against the topic itself, nor against the contributor. You are a wee too touchy for a dominatrix. Mikkalai 06:23, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)
      • read my comment again with reading comprehension in mind. I was agreeing with you - in light of the article you pointed out, all I offer is opinion. As for the rest, put it in my talk page if you want to bait me. 04:20, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete claims are unverified, smells of socks. Advertisement. --InShaneee 16:53, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, article seems fine, too much anti-commercial over-reaction. Also contributors from the company have not been hiding where they come from and are being open about these being theire first edits - don't see a reason to give them such a hard time about it. Pcb21| Pete 22:59, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. JuntungWu 09:11, 10 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This page is now preserved as an archive of the debate and, like some other VfD subpages, is no longer 'live'. Subsequent comments on the issue, the deletion, or the decision-making process should be placed on the relevant 'live' pages. Please do not edit this page.